DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/21/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A (Fig.1-3) in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/27/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “5” has possibly been used to designate both “sole holder” and element 9 protrusion? In at least Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cooperating with the sole of an inserted ski boot” (Claim 1, line 4-5), “a stop” (Claim 1, line 12), “a rounding” (Claim 7), “helical compression springs or elastomeric spring elements” (Claim 10 – both not shown), “a free space” (Claim 11), “a further stop” (Claim 12), and “a safety ski binding with a feel jaw” (Claim 14) must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “characterised in that” is unclear and should be rewritten as “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “as well as” (line 2) is unclear and should be rewritten. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “the sole” (line 5) is unclear and should be rewritten as “a sole”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “their” (line 3 & 4 & 8) is unclear and should be rewritten as “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “they” (line 3 & 4 & 8) is unclear and should be rewritten as “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “the bottom side” (line 2) is unclear and should be rewritten as “a bottom side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “a front jaw” (line 2) is unclear and should be rewritten as “the front jaw”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “cooperating with” (line 4-5) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “a ball-joint-like manner” (line 8) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “movable upwards over” (line 4-5) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitations: “the rear end" which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The claim does not previously recite any specific element which would necessarily have a “rear end” to which this limitation would refer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 6, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2/6/12/13, the claims recite the limitation: “designed" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2/6/12/13, the claim recites the limitations: “in particular" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitations: “the ball-joint-like-mounting" which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Claim 1 only provides the similar functional limitation: “the ball-joint-like-manner". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitations: “the protrusions" which is of unclear antecedent basis as the claim currently depends from Claim 1 and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Claim 2 first introduces “a protrusion", therefore claim 3 will be assumed to depend from Claim 2 for purposes of prosecution herein. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation: “a block-like manner” (line 2) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation: “in which” (line 2) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitations: “the free space" which is of unclear antecedent basis as the claim currently depends from Claim 1 and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Claim 12 first introduces “a free space", therefore claim 13 will be assumed to depend from Claim 12 for purposes of prosecution herein. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation: “optionally present” (line 2) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation: “standardised” (line 4) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janisch et al. (US 5,028,069).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Janisch discloses: A front jaw of a safety ski binding (See, e.g. Fig.1-8) with
a base plate (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 2d+2+5) and a housing (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 2) with a housing upper part (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 2) as well as with sole holders (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 13+11) pivotable about bolts (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 12+10+6) forming vertically extending axes and having front and rear segments (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), the sole holders, at their front segments, receiving the bolts in bores (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 12+10+6) and, at their rear segments, cooperating with the sole of an inserted ski boot (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 16), characterised in that
the sole holders, at their front segments, are mounted on the housing upper part in a ball-joint-like manner (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), so that they are movable upwards over their rear segments by tilting the bolts (See, e.g. Fig.1-8),
wherein each bolt projects through an elongated hole (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 12+10+6) extending in the ski longitudinal direction (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), formed in the base plate and having front and rear ends (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), and below the elongated hole, is pressed towards the front end of the elongated hole under the action of a spring (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 7+14+15), wherein the rear end forms a stop limiting the extent of tilting the bolts (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 8+9).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Janisch discloses: characterised in that, for the ball-joint-like mounting, each sole holder has a protrusion designed in the shape of a spherical segment (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), in particular in the shape of a hemisphere, which engages an oppositely shaped recess on the bottom side of the housing upper part (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Janisch discloses: characterised in that the bolts are received in blind bores of the sole holders, wherein the protrusions are located above the ends of the blind bores (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Janisch discloses: characterised in that each bolt is biased by the spring via a pressing element (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 7+8+2).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Janisch discloses: characterised in that the pressing element is designed in a block-like manner (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Janisch discloses: characterised in that the pressing element, on its side facing the bolt, has a rounding partially encircling the bolt (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 2+15a).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Janisch discloses: characterised in that the pressing elements and the springs biasing them are accommodated in a cavity of the base plate (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Janisch discloses: characterised in that the springs which bias the pressing elements are helical compression springs or elastomeric spring elements (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 7+14+15).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Janisch discloses: in which the housing upper part at least partially covers the sole holders, according to claim 1, characterised in that a free space is present between the housing upper part and the sole holders (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Janisch discloses: characterised in that the free space is designed such that, when moving the sole holders upwards, the housing upper part forms a further stop limiting the extent of the movement (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 2).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, Janisch discloses: characterised in that the elongated hole and the free space optionally present between the housing upper part and the sole holders are designed corresponding to automatic adaptation of the sole holders to soles of ski boots with standardised sole thicknesses of 19.00 mm+1.00 mm, in particular with additional clearance for movement of up to 1.00 mm (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, Janisch discloses: A safety ski binding with a heel jaw and a front jaw which is embodied according to claim 1 (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights